Economy Problems
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:34 am
Yesterday there was a thread focusing on Neopets economy problems, and this thread was locked. I still thought it was a good idea, so I've created a new thread for this issue. Neopets is very one-sided money wise (favoring rsers), and just post comments on what could be done to improve the situation. Anyone is free to reply
Note: I am not Pwn4g3 Man nor do I know him. I just thought his thread was a good idea.
1. Limit the number of items that can be bought from a single shop daily: self-explanatory.
2. Make moderately expensive (200-500k) items more common: this lowers the price, making them more accessible for poorer users.
3. Allow 4 of 5 plays per game per day: unlimited would be a huge problem, as it was in the past, but 4 or 5 could make a significant but non-threatening change.
Note: I am not Pwn4g3 Man nor do I know him. I just thought his thread was a good idea.
1. Limit the number of items that can be bought from a single shop daily: self-explanatory.
2. Make moderately expensive (200-500k) items more common: this lowers the price, making them more accessible for poorer users.
3. Allow 4 of 5 plays per game per day: unlimited would be a huge problem, as it was in the past, but 4 or 5 could make a significant but non-threatening change.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:45 am
4- Remove the 1k NP limit from games.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:18 am
I like idea number one, as it would spread the wealth, as it were, among users, without limiting the number of items. But rather than it being an absolute limit, it should be by shop. Thus, I could only buy, say, 20 chocolate items a day, but I could still raid the haunted food shop. And so on and so forth.
Ideas 3 and 4 are very bad ideas, IMO. When you increase the amount of money in the economy, it leads to inflation. This won't solve the problem of items' relative expense...all it will do is increase their price without decreasing value.
So, items that are 75k now will shoot up to the UB level, and then become more rare in the economy (because fewer will sell). Unless the 100k shop price limit is increased/removed entirely, then this will probably become a positive feedback loop and prices will gradually increase on items that are buyable now.
Suggestion number 2, increasing commonality of items, is actually a better idea. A little deflation wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily. They did this a couple of years ago, doubling the number of items below R80 that restocked in shops. It cheesed off a lot of restockers, but in the end was good for the economy, because demand (in terms of total users) was increasing, but supply was not, so prices were rising - until this was implemented. There was a drastic decrease in prices of items that were used for quests, and it was, overall, a good thing.
I think simply doubling the number of restocked items from R60 to R99 would be a good idea. That may just be me, though.
Ideas 3 and 4 are very bad ideas, IMO. When you increase the amount of money in the economy, it leads to inflation. This won't solve the problem of items' relative expense...all it will do is increase their price without decreasing value.
So, items that are 75k now will shoot up to the UB level, and then become more rare in the economy (because fewer will sell). Unless the 100k shop price limit is increased/removed entirely, then this will probably become a positive feedback loop and prices will gradually increase on items that are buyable now.
Suggestion number 2, increasing commonality of items, is actually a better idea. A little deflation wouldn't be a bad thing, necessarily. They did this a couple of years ago, doubling the number of items below R80 that restocked in shops. It cheesed off a lot of restockers, but in the end was good for the economy, because demand (in terms of total users) was increasing, but supply was not, so prices were rising - until this was implemented. There was a drastic decrease in prices of items that were used for quests, and it was, overall, a good thing.
I think simply doubling the number of restocked items from R60 to R99 would be a good idea. That may just be me, though.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:56 am
actually, the economy depends on people's mindsets in the game... you're not looking at a majority of 20-30 year olds playing, teenagers are the majority here... so you'll have to view it in their perspective...
1) limiting 1 item to a single shop might inconvience people, as sometimes they might need to buy from a same shop a few times in a day... it's not going to be much use, since if you're really a restocker, one restock a day is enough... mgiht give others a chance, but not likely...
2) Increasing the number of expensive items IS a good idea, but TNT won't usually do that to items above 100k... they did it once in the war for medicine, but if they do it to expensive items, guess how many people (ie the owners of that specific items) would get angry? Is a risk of angering lots of people who hold the items worse than the risk of making people unhappy that they don't have enough for the item?
3/4 will only increase the amount of NP we have in neopia, with a steady influx of NP we have already in a day, there isn't much that it would do; in fact it might get worse since people might have more money, thus willing to spend more... it's all a matter of demand...
So the economy of Neopia isn't something you can change in a day or by imposing few restrictions... it's fixed by the players, and the players themselves decide how the economy of Neopia is like
1) limiting 1 item to a single shop might inconvience people, as sometimes they might need to buy from a same shop a few times in a day... it's not going to be much use, since if you're really a restocker, one restock a day is enough... mgiht give others a chance, but not likely...
2) Increasing the number of expensive items IS a good idea, but TNT won't usually do that to items above 100k... they did it once in the war for medicine, but if they do it to expensive items, guess how many people (ie the owners of that specific items) would get angry? Is a risk of angering lots of people who hold the items worse than the risk of making people unhappy that they don't have enough for the item?
3/4 will only increase the amount of NP we have in neopia, with a steady influx of NP we have already in a day, there isn't much that it would do; in fact it might get worse since people might have more money, thus willing to spend more... it's all a matter of demand...
So the economy of Neopia isn't something you can change in a day or by imposing few restrictions... it's fixed by the players, and the players themselves decide how the economy of Neopia is like
Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:31 am
Actually, increasing the NP cap on games even to 2k would help a great deal for those that can't RS. It'll creat more NP in the economy, true, but that can also be countered by getting rid of that ridiculous 100k Shop Wiz limit, maybe replacing it with something like 500k.
Because the only choices here are to increase the efficiency of games, of decrease the efficiency of RSing.
I don't see how you can decrease the efficiency of RSing without upsetting EVERYONE. Think about it. Some people don't RS ultra-rare items, but hoard up on the smaller items. They might buy 50 of one type of cheap item in a day, and make a few K profit from it. Don't forget that they'd buy other items as well, so limiting it to 25 items per shop per day will upset these people. Then it'll also upset the reg RSers, since the shop will be flooded with cheap items, and almost no decent ones. Competition for the good items will increase, and RSing will become ever harder to do.
Because the only choices here are to increase the efficiency of games, of decrease the efficiency of RSing.
I don't see how you can decrease the efficiency of RSing without upsetting EVERYONE. Think about it. Some people don't RS ultra-rare items, but hoard up on the smaller items. They might buy 50 of one type of cheap item in a day, and make a few K profit from it. Don't forget that they'd buy other items as well, so limiting it to 25 items per shop per day will upset these people. Then it'll also upset the reg RSers, since the shop will be flooded with cheap items, and almost no decent ones. Competition for the good items will increase, and RSing will become ever harder to do.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:11 am
Would not raising/removing game caps actually cause MORE inflation of desireable items?
(Still thinks game caps are stupid)
(Still thinks game caps are stupid)
Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:46 am
I don't know if making moderately expensive items a lower rarity would help. It's all about supply and demand, for example, those Pinatas are like r80 yet still cost about 500k (correct me if I'm wrong.)
One idea is that rare items could be rewarded on some games instead of neopoints, or maybe to the people in the top 50? I can't actually remember this, because I would have been pretty new to neo at the time, but I heard that you used to be able to get magical plushies from games - pretty good idea IMO. This would cause deflation in items however.... I dunno, in some respect it'd mean people who wanted one could actually afford one, but gamers still wouldn't really be making that much money.
One idea is that rare items could be rewarded on some games instead of neopoints, or maybe to the people in the top 50? I can't actually remember this, because I would have been pretty new to neo at the time, but I heard that you used to be able to get magical plushies from games - pretty good idea IMO. This would cause deflation in items however.... I dunno, in some respect it'd mean people who wanted one could actually afford one, but gamers still wouldn't really be making that much money.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:51 am
The Pinata's are about 200k now. And the thing with Pinata's is that 99% of people buying them will use them for the avatar therefore taking it off the site basically. It's because there's so much demand on them that they are as much as they are.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:03 pm
Yes, it's not that things that aren't that rare can't be expensive. Supply and demand: the higher the supply, the higher the demand needs to be to drive the price up, but it can still happen. This is especially with new avatar items, which are high demand and of which there aren't actually that many yet despite the low rarity (being new).
So to drive prices down, one much either increase the supply or decrease the demand.
In Neopia demand isn't decreasing, it's increasing, as more and more people join the site. So prices will go up naturally unless the supply is increased to compensate.
I think increasing the numbers of items that restock, ESPECIALLY r99's, would be a very good idea and the only feasable way to combat inflation.
Increasing the game limit is only going to make inflation worse... sure, you'll have more money, but it won't buy anything more than it did before, and we'll be working harder for it, too. Bad idea all around. Any attempt to address the gamer/restocker devide is going to have to focus on the restocker side. My suggestion to do this has always been to make the prices in the official shops more sensitive to the market rate: raise the prices of very valuble items... not so much that restockers should still be able to make a healthy profit, of course. Because NPs that go to the ifficial stores are removed from the economy, this would also help inflation.
So to drive prices down, one much either increase the supply or decrease the demand.
In Neopia demand isn't decreasing, it's increasing, as more and more people join the site. So prices will go up naturally unless the supply is increased to compensate.
I think increasing the numbers of items that restock, ESPECIALLY r99's, would be a very good idea and the only feasable way to combat inflation.
Increasing the game limit is only going to make inflation worse... sure, you'll have more money, but it won't buy anything more than it did before, and we'll be working harder for it, too. Bad idea all around. Any attempt to address the gamer/restocker devide is going to have to focus on the restocker side. My suggestion to do this has always been to make the prices in the official shops more sensitive to the market rate: raise the prices of very valuble items... not so much that restockers should still be able to make a healthy profit, of course. Because NPs that go to the ifficial stores are removed from the economy, this would also help inflation.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:25 pm
Taika wrote:One idea is that rare items could be rewarded on some games instead of neopoints, or maybe to the people in the top 50? I can't actually remember this, because I would have been pretty new to neo at the time, but I heard that you used to be able to get magical plushies from games - pretty good idea IMO.
Yes, for a while you could get Magical Meerca Plushies from the original Meerca Chase. You had to get a score I believe around 700 to get the plushie. This wasn't around for very long, but I did manange to get a few of the plushies.
I think they should implement this into the games system agin. It would give gamers something to look forward to besides the gain of a few measly nps.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:29 pm
Seerow wrote:Taika wrote:One idea is that rare items could be rewarded on some games instead of neopoints, or maybe to the people in the top 50? I can't actually remember this, because I would have been pretty new to neo at the time, but I heard that you used to be able to get magical plushies from games - pretty good idea IMO.
Yes, for a while you could get Magical Meerca Plushies from the original Meerca Chase. You had to get a score I believe around 700 to get the plushie. This wasn't around for very long, but I did manange to get a few of the plushies.
I think they should implement this into the games system agin. It would give gamers something to look forward to besides the gain of a few measly nps.
The intention of taking such items out of the games was the fact that people ended up cheating on those games for a profit (getting those magical plushies.) Yes they've taken a lot more measures since then, but it would still be a problem.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:35 pm
I just joined another pet site that has a couple useful things, I think could help neopets.
One is a random giveaway game that you play every 30 mins that either gives you money or an item.
This would deflate prices on many items.
And they also have like a 20 second delay between things you can buy. This delay may be good enough to allow people with dial-up to restock an item.
Also prevents people from buying out the entire shop within a few seconds.
One is a random giveaway game that you play every 30 mins that either gives you money or an item.
This would deflate prices on many items.
And they also have like a 20 second delay between things you can buy. This delay may be good enough to allow people with dial-up to restock an item.
Also prevents people from buying out the entire shop within a few seconds.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:51 pm
Butterflyhornet wrote:I just joined another pet site that has a couple useful things, I think could help neopets.
One is a random giveaway game that you play every 30 mins that either gives you money or an item.
This would deflate prices on many items.
And they also have like a 20 second delay between things you can buy. This delay may be good enough to allow people with dial-up to restock an item.
Also prevents people from buying out the entire shop within a few seconds.
The game giveaway is a pretty decent idea, I wish I'd thought of it.
The simplest way to prevent cheating would just be to have it be like Dice-a-roo, where it's a turn-based Java game. And it could give out rarer items the better you do.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:31 pm
I don't mean a cap of 1 item per day (maybe 5-10 is better).
I stand by increased gameplays, becuase that's how the average Neopets player gets money. This will result in slight inflation, but it will even itself out if more expensive items can be bought.
I stand by increased gameplays, becuase that's how the average Neopets player gets money. This will result in slight inflation, but it will even itself out if more expensive items can be bought.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:46 pm
Here's an idea: for important items (for example, medicines) remove inflation entirely and go to a price target system. To calculate such a target: if NP represents a unit of "work", then how much work do you want your players do in order to get item x?
To move prices towards that target: when prices (i.e. the SWA) are above the target, slowly increase supply of that item to drop the price. When prices are below the target, slowly decrease supply.
The "slowly" part will allow some players to continue playing the economy.
The dynamicism will allow things to self-correct no matter how big the player base gets.
(However, I have no clue how this sort of thing can work with unbuyables, since the game probably has no way of knowing what that item is selling for.)
To move prices towards that target: when prices (i.e. the SWA) are above the target, slowly increase supply of that item to drop the price. When prices are below the target, slowly decrease supply.
The "slowly" part will allow some players to continue playing the economy.
The dynamicism will allow things to self-correct no matter how big the player base gets.
(However, I have no clue how this sort of thing can work with unbuyables, since the game probably has no way of knowing what that item is selling for.)